Advancing theory through the conceptualization and development of causal attributions for computer performance histories

Abstract

AcknowledgementA previous shorter version of the paper (with a very different message) was presented at AMCIS. AbstractAttribution theory, advanced by Bernard Weiner and his colleagues is an important, though sometimes controversial, theory that has demonstrated vitality and longevity. The cross-disciplinary application of attribution theory to, for example, organizational behavior, marketing, and education, has stimulated the interests of researchers and contributed to its theoretical validity and reliability. Compared to other disciplines, the application and theoretical testing of attribution theory are in the "spring" of their existence in the field of Information Systems (IS). This paper proposes that conceptualization and measurement of the causal attributions individuals make for their computer performance and performance histories, positive and negative, are critical to understanding computer adoption and post-adoption behaviors. We first identify the causal attributions that enterprise resource planning (ERP) users make for their computer performance histories. We then describe the conceptualization and development of multi-item scales to capture these causal attributions. This work contributes to theory and practice through (1) the development and psychometric testing of several attributional scales for advancing our understanding of the multitheoretical stream of research investigating technology adoption at the individual level, and (2) by providing a description of a theoretical multimethod approach for the rigorous scale development of causal attributions.Our work suggests that researchers must consider several fundamental principles of attribution theory when investigating IS artifacts during various adoption phases.

“Creatures of habit”: influential factors to the adoption of computer personalization and accessibility settings

“…This is in line with activity and attribution theory research as someone’s personal history can directly affect their current actions, the attributions they perform [ 34 ], and may even predict their future actions [ 29 , 129 ]. As such, someone’s lifetime of technical experiences can influence their usage patterns years later [ 33 ].…”

“…We supplemented our qualitative data with various theories, models, and frameworks to underpin our grounded theory work. Specifically, TAM [ 22 – 24 ], UTAUT [ 25 ], STAM [ 26 ], TPB [ 27 ]), causal attributions [ 33 , 34 , 73 ], Norman’s Gulfs of Evaluation and Execution [ 123 ], and Activity Theory [ 28 , 31 , 32 , 61 , 124 ]. This approach allowed us to define the characteristics of the overall personalization lifecycle by grounding them in the lived experiences of our participants and visually orienting our personalization lifecycle model within the context of other well-known adoption and use theories, models, and frameworks.…”

Computer-Related Attribution Styles: Typology and Data Collection Methods

“…To sum up, results of the four studies confirm the typology of computer-related attribution styles that had been developed in the pilot studies [6]. Even though very different methods of data collection were used, the same attribution styles emerged over and over again, thus supporting the assumption that people indeed display stable, specific computer-related attribution styles.…”

“…For example, users with different attribution styles might have quite different explanations for events like system failures, triggering different user responses. Thus, having favorable or unfavorable attribution styles, respectively, might account for differences regarding computer mastery, computer anxiety, or simply different styles of using computers , as has been shown in different studies (for an overview see [6]). Therefore, a detailed knowledge of computer-related attribution styles might help to understand user behavior and difficulties when using computers better.…”

What Is Meaningful Human-Computer Interaction? Understanding Freedom, Responsibility, and Noos in HCI Based on Viktor Frankl’s Existential Philosophy

“…In HCI, responsibility in interaction (as defned in Section 5.1.3) is mostly discussed in the context of attribution of success and failure in achieving interaction goals and accomplishing interaction tasks [e.g., 47,50,65,87]. In contrast, Frankl's concept of responsibility difers signifcantly.…”